Is Qt an interesting platform for business apps development, outside of Nokia phones ?
Why ? Strong points ?
Thanks
I like Qt because:
Very well-designed framework, e.g. signal-slot, model-view, graphics view/scene/item/proxy, painter/paint device/paint engine..., too many to be listed here!
Excellent documentation!
Cross platform language/API, as well as tools like UI designer, creator, and so on.
Rich features, e.g. graphics framework, network library, database engine, and so on.
Active community, and active development.
There should be more. If you have ever used it, you'll find it's easy to build your framework upon Qt.
I didn't have any complain to Qt. If I have to say at least one disadvantage here, "convention". You must adopt the convention of Qt, e.g. You have to use moc to make the meta object of your objects, and it's easier for developers to use Qt's vector, list, auto_ptr than STL, tr1. But I never found any issue caused by that. On the contrary, it works very well.
In my opinion, Qt is the state-of-the-art C++ framework in this modern world!
P.S. There are a lot of commercial applications built on Qt. You can find it under Qt's official website. But I'd like add one more here: Perforce, one of the top commercial source code management tools, built its client tool on Qt for Windows/Linux/Mac.
yes it is .. just look at kde apps :)
or see more applications made by qt
and it has alot of bindings in many languages
Documentation
cross-Platform IDE
further reading
may be this is not so related to the question ... but my first deal with qt was just great starting from their well organized Documentation to their great widgets
the GraphicsView is just ammazing ! :)
It's about the only current/modern C++ gui library on Windows.
MFC is so old you have to write comments in Latin
WTL would be nice if they had finished it before abandoning it.
Winforms/WPF + managed C++/CLR - all the fun of several incompatible new technologies at once.
Bad points:
To fit on lots of platforms they have invented their own solutions to things that are now in the STL/Boost
The signal/slot mechanism - tricky to debug and silently fails (with no error) with simple typos.
Although everything is possible it's sometimes a lot of effort to do simple things (they do love MVC) compared to Winforms.
Qt is simple
Qt is powerful
Qt is NATIVELY-CROSS-PLATFORM
Qt is REALLY-CROSS-PLATFORM
Qt is comprehensive (but the Media side of it still needs to grow)
Qt doesn't require Garbage Collection, but it embeds a GREAT model of memory management that makes you forget about memory deallocation
Qt is solid
Qt is modern
Qt proposes some new paradigm of programming that are really good (Signals-Slots)
Qt runs a lot of VERY successful software: (Skype, Google Earth...)
Are those points strong enough?
Maybe you have heard about Google Earth which happens to be programmed in Qt too.
That aside, I like Qt for my in-house development because it
is very well supported and documented,
allows me to write simple and decent-looking apps that are
works cross-platform for Windows and Linux with little effort, and
contains nice to have components for database access, regexps, guis, xml, ...
I also use the Qwt widgets for easy real-time plotting on top of Qt.
I really dont understand whats the point in underestimating tools/frameworks which makes things easy for programmers. Qt is too good for GUI development, I would say its much better than any current existing crossplatform app development suite.
So many advantages, I have been using it for more than three years now for a product to be deployed in Linux/Win environments. The app is thread intensive and initially we had a tough time using pthreads and its conterpart for windows. Then we switched to Qt(and QThreads eventually) and things were a breeze...
Backed by active development, a highly helpful and supportive community along with excellent documentation, training, certification programs, videos, forums... its easy, fast and effective to develop in Qt. You should see the video which they create a web browser in just five mins!
Its really 'cross platform', and it doesnt have a software wrapper(like Java does) to enable this which makes it faster. Cmon, we all know java apps have buttons which takes a second to respond to even a simple 'click'.
I hope Qt will someday do a take on Java. :D
after all, 350000 developers cant be wrong when they chose Qt.
Pixar uses Qt (or at least, used, as of 2005) internally for certain parts of their tool suite (called "Marionette" in the marketing) collectively called Menv, ("men-vee" for Modelling ENVironment)---at least for their lighting sub-tool Lumos.
Related
I am a C++ programmer, but for some reason, I have to develop a website by myself(My own commercial project). I don't want to take a lot of time to study JavaScript and something else. It is possible to just use QT and WebAssembly (instead of HTML + CSS + JavaScript) to develop a front-end web?
Yes, it's absolutely possible and I'm currently doing it for a project but you should do it carefully based on the project requirements, running environment and your own backgrounds.
Here are some problems you may encounter:
The output .wasm file may get too large. Generally, it won't be suitable for public domain applications.
In low-end devices, maybe you find it laggy if you don't do enough code level optimizations.
Threads are not officially supported yet (as of Dec. 2019) by major browsers but tech-preview is available. This is not a real big problem as it would be a standard feature soon.
Native virtual keyboard won't work on mobile devices but the work is in progress.
These were my own major problems with Qt for WebAssembly.
Despite this, I find it much more flexible than HTML+CSS. QML is really a nice language for UI development. Creating animated UIs is quite easy and straight-forward.
You can also use many JavaScript libraries in your QML code like Lodash and Moment or any other js library that does not refer or manipulate window DOM.
Yes, it is possible. But you should do not do it if only reason is reject for learning new technologies.
For now (I'am writing this answer when Qt 5.14 is present) Qt for webassembly is deployed as official platform. Unfortunately it is young platform support with a lot of problems and possible future changes. Qt team do really good job so next version will be better. 5.14 is much better than 5.13 in webassembly context but still need fixes.
You should know Qt for webassembly will support only a few Qt modules, excluding widget. Yes, you can only use QML for GUI.
Qt for webassembly was created for the purpose of port one code base in other platform (it it generally Qt develop way, please see Qt for MCU). With other technologies in this stack like QRemoteObject is very interesting technologies. It was not created for websites in normal network. Main Qt for webassembly target are internal network systems and remote control of devices. Pay attention about this.
Unfortunately, not all browser will support webassembly right. Please see Qt for weassembly support notes.
Additional, in Qt you can't find build-in rest-API handle or other standard web technologies to integrate with your existing backed.
We have existing WPF application with complicated graphics (rounded edges of the window, speedometer style indicators etc).
Since we rely on .NET our application needs .NET framework. Some users are unwilling to install .NET and we want to provide them with a version that does not need .NET and runs of Windows only (XP,Vista,W7).
Which graphical toolkit we should use to for this scenario?
So far I think Codejock Toolkit Pro is a good adept as we already have GUI in XAML and it could be easier to port GUI to C++.
However, another aspect is download size of the toolkit. We don't want to end up in the situation where toolkit size is so big (e.g. 20-40MB) that's comparable with .NET 4.0 framework size.
I know some of you might think that going back from WPF to C++ is a bad idea, but for our scenario it is absolutely crucial to make user's installation process as easy as possible and .NET framework is a big stumbling block which we are trying to remove.
Sorry I do not have the answer to your question (and I would never ever even dream that I might do such a thing), but I am compelled to tell you as an advice
implementing all the WPF functionality in C++ will take 10-20 times more
installation of a C++ would not be necessarily easier
if you need to make installation easier, use SilverLight
We used QT in one of our projects in past which is Object Oriented and Multi Platform, but QT is mostly like WinForms
As I remember QT keeps UI in xml files too, try to write XSLT from xaml to QT xml. But I don't thik you can do it in complex WPF structures like Triggers or Animation
Have you evaluated QT? Since this relies on XML for UI definition too, it might be easier to port the code to.
You've already gotten a couple of answers recommending Qt -- and I'd agree that's probably your first choice. Note, however, that while Qt does support an XML-based UI description, they seem to be moving away from it toward QML, which is based on JavaScript instead.
Another possibility would be wxWidgets, which also supports an XML-based description of the widgets using XRC.
I have a significant codebase written in MFC and am tasked with creating a port for Mac OS X. I know that I'm going to have to roll up my sleeves at some point and do alot of grunt work to get everything working correctly, but are there any tools out there that might get me partway?
I'm working on one.
From the GUI point of view, the new version of AppMaker is based around an import/generate model. Most of commercial work I've done with AppMaker has been the other way, porting Macintosh applications to Windows. However, there's no reason why the same principles can't be applied in reverse.
AppMaker v2 had a very good importer for PowerPlant UI resources and traditional Mac dialogs. As it is only able to run on Classic, that code base has been discarded (you really don't want to know) and the final generator languge I wrote for AppMaker v2 is an XML exporter which dumps the entire object model to an extended XAML.
I already have a XAML UI generator and am currently working on a Cocoa xib generator - one of the reasons for going to WWDC in June. The focus at this time is on import/generator suites before returning my attention to a GUI editor.
I wrote PP2MFC to allow PowerPlant applications to be compiled for Windows - a cross-platform solution needed because no other framework or cross-platform tool at the time (1997) would perform well enough for the hardware requirements. I've since discussed an opposite program with someone I could chase up and I'm sure an MFC portability layer could be created to map to Cocoa objects. Whilst many developers have a poor opinion of MFC's message-map architecture, the heavily macro-based API sits on top of a reasonably clean OO framework.
This is the kind of project where you need to think about long-term maintainability - do you want something which ends up as large chunks of MFC code working with Cocoa or do you want to migrate to an idiomatic Cocoa program.
Any further discussion should probably be taken off SO - contact me at dent at oofile.com.au but I'm happy to debate technicalities and feasibility on here. The combination of code generation and skinny framework adaptor layers works better than most people expect.
Honestly, the models are so different that I suspect you're going to need to do a nearly complete re-code at least of most of the UI parts.
No, Such a tool would be pretty much impossible to write.
MFC and Cocoa are such fundamentally different platforms there is no easy way to convert between the two.
Depending on how you've written your applications, you will either need to write the GUI portion of your code or even the whole codebase.
I am considering using smartwin for a Windows platform only C++ project but notice that there has not been a release for 18months since 2.0rc5 was released i.e. it appears that it is no longer maintained.
After playing with it seems pretty good, I like it's use of templates, signals/slots (via boost) and it will meet the project needs but I would like some experiences of other users who are currently using it to help me weight it up?
Have you looked at Qt instead? I think it has a lot of the features you're looking for, and would be much better supported, both in developer tools and framework maturity.
"...we really don't need a full application framework or cross platform portability - just a lite Win32 GUI framework that can be easily added to an existing app "
That is exactly what Smartwin was created for. Combine that with the Sally IDE, and you'll have a complete RAD development environment that is fast compact and complete. Note that Google is currently using WTL for their Chrome browser, but Smartwin is even more efficient than WTL.
Smartwin Also has a library called Winelib that they hope will make this also a portable environment in the long term.
Personally, if you want to go portable, I'd go with wxWidgets. However, if you are planning for sure to stay with windows, I'd certainly give Smartwin++ a look.
I, myself, would use wxWidgets, as thats what I usually use and am used to, so thats kind just a personal choice.
Good Luck.
-Donald
Consider using wxWidgets. It is mature, well supported library with lots of features.
Went for WTL in the end and that's been a pretty seamless and painless transition. Thanks for the comments and responses everyone.
Ultimate++
http://www.ultimatepp.org/
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I have to choose a platform for our product. I have to decide between The Qt Framework and Adobe's AIR. I am well versed with Qt as I have worked for the last two years. I looked up at the Adobe's site but all the info about flex, flash, ability to coding in HTML/ActionScript is overwhelming and confusing. I cannot understand the following about the Adobe ecosystem.
I have the following questions on Adobe AIR:
What language do I use for coding my application? (not just defining the looks of UI)
Like in Qt I use C++. Is it Actionscript?
Can we say AIR is only for making UI's for apps.
Where is the doc for the utility classes along with AIR?
e.g. http://qt-project.org/doc/ for Qt
Qt ships with a huge set of premade widgets that one can use. Does Adobe ship with any such widget set and if so where can i see it as in url?
I understand flex SDK is open source. Can I make commerical apps and ship them ? Does flex SDK ship everything (compiler, utility classes/widgets)
How much does AIR cost in terms of licensing?
Is there something in AIR that is equivalent to QGraphicsView of QT?
If you needs to access a lot of native libraries, you'll need to stay within your QT environment. Keep in mind that AIR is single-threaded and is run on the Flash Player (something that was originally designed for frame-based animations.)
However, depending on the style of application you're building, AIR might suit you just fine.
Beware that AIR can get confusing because there's a few different developer paths to creating AIR applications: 1) using html/javascript and the AIR SDK, 2) using Flash/Actionscript and 3) using Flex SDK and/or Flex builder. The last one is the most capable as far as coming from traditional desktop development background.
Small apps that are Web 2.0 for hooking into web services are good candidates for AIR applications. Things like the IM client Digsby would be great. My favorite AIR app that I've seen thus far is Basamiq Mockups. Other useful apps are TweetDeck. These are good examples of the types of things that are well-suited to solve with AIR.
You should visit the Adobe Showcase and look at some applications: http://www.adobe.com/products/air/showcase/
Also, if you're looking to just get out of the C++ game, I believe QT has some java bindings now...also I remember some python bindings, but never look at those myself.
As far as QGraphicsView, people have done similar things in Flex. I tried Googling right now but couldn't find them initially, but people have taken things like A large image, and then only displayed a current region in the window. Also, in the next version of Flex, they're acutaly building an official ViewPort component:
http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/flexsdk/Gumbo+Viewport
Go spend some time with this AIR application and then ask yourself if Adobe Flex and AIR are worth investing your time in mastering (be prepared to ask yourself why something comparable doesn't exist for the likes of C++/QT):
Tour de Flex
Tour de Flex is a desktop application
for exploring Flex capabilities and
resources, including the core Flex
components, Adobe AIR and data
integration, as well as a variety of
third-party components, effects,
skins, and more.
Some of your questions:
Flex can be coded in MXML and
ActionScript3. AIR additionally
supports HTML/DOM/JavaScript
programming as webkit HTML render engine is built into
the AIR runtime.
MXML is an XML declarative DSL that
gets compiled into ActionScript3
imperative code. It is quite good,
though, for declaratively coding the
graphical forms of the UI (i.e., the
views of the MVC pattern).
ActionScript3 has a heratige that is
founded on JavaScript, but it has
been embelished to the point it more
resembles Java or C#. It has package
namespace, classes and interfaces
with inheritance, class member
access protection keywords,
constructors, static members, and
some very nice additions over Java:
properties, events, data-binding,
and closures.
Flex style programming is also a single-threaded model that relies on asynchronous I/O interactions. This is a simpler model to program than multi-threaded Java Swing or C# .NET Winform apps, yet permits achieving the same net results of program behavior. I elaborate on that here:
Flex Async I/O vs Java and C# Explicit Threading
Flex is open source, you can download the SDK for free, there are no licensing costs associated with it. (see their FAQ)
They do ship a 'flex builder', which is some custom Eclipse I think, and which costs money, but you can perfectly work without it.
The docs can be found at adobe's livedoc pages. (which to some, is enough reason in itself to dislike Adobe ;))
I do wonder, if you are well versed in QT, why are you considering something else? Which advantages do you expect AIR to give you over QT?
I have some experience with both QT and Flex, but not nearly enough to weight one versus the other. I do know QT/C++ is much, much more mature than Flex/ActionScript.
If you already know QT, I don't think the time spend learning a new framework (and programming language) will gain you enough to be honest...
I've used QT and Flex (not so much Air itself though) and have found that Flex is faster for getting apps up and running as well as modifying, while QT gives you more control -- particularly in the installer. The Air app installer is pretty awkward, or at least it was when I tried it, though it may have been improved since then.
The big advantage of Air is that much of the code for it can be run in Flash inside web pages. You can't access the local file system etc. from the web for security reasons but just about everything else is portable.
I made the opposite move. I started working on Adobe stuff and moved to QT. The main reason for doing it was about Adobe framework limitations. When you are using Adobe stuff, you are limited to the tools that they produce, it is hard to introduce external frameworks or libraries, if can not do what you want with Adobe stuff. Usually, the solution to do this is to use sockets, which transforms a supposed "stand-alone" application on a client-server architecture. In addition, if you are using many external stuff it can be hard to manage so many different clients.
Using QT you can code in C++ and add any external framework or lib you want. Even though, some times it can not be easy to code it, is doable and with no "strange" system architecture.
If your looking for some examples of "fun" UIs using Qt and SVG, take a look at the KDEGames [1][2] and KDEEdu [3][4] projects. There's lot's of nice code there that uses QGraphicsView and SVG to created scalable interfaces. Of course note that's it's GPL so be careful what you "borrow" if your app isn't.
[1] http://games.kde.org/
[2] http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/KDE/kdegames/
[3] http://edu.kde.org/
[4] http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/KDE/kdeedu/
I'll second #Pieter's comment - if you already know QT, moving to a whole new environment is going to take a LOT longer.
QT has the advantage of being cross-platform, and very mature: there are libraries for Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X. I'm not extremely familiar with AIR beyond knowing it's from Adobe, but the product site seems to indicate that it's for rich internet apps (http://www.adobe.com/products/air/). If that's true, then QT would be the far better choice if you're developing a desktop application.